crow
Junior Strategist
Posts: 310 
|
Post by crow on May 28, 2018 20:46:32 GMT
Hey there robot people! I’m a Merc player, but I don’t get many games in. As such I was looking at getting a mini faction (while keeping most of what I have for mercs) and decided I really like the look of COC and the fact that it’s “vectors” work a lot like warjacks but aren’t warjacks. However I did want to get some new jacks for mercs too, so I’ve been toying with the idea to go crucible guard when it’s released... then I remembered that Locke is also going to be COC and through her I could use the few Merc jacks I wanna get from CG while still getting use out of them a bit in COC.
I guess my big question is... what are your thoughts? Is COC in a decent place right now? What casters are popular? What would you consider essentials for the faction? Would it be to similiar to dwarves and Cephalyx (my two current main parts of mercs)? And how active is the COC forum? I mean I haven’t noticed a lot of chatter... but is that normal or are we waiting for something?
|
|
|
|
Post by ninjastars on May 29, 2018 4:21:32 GMT
Convergence is in a really good place e right now. They place very solidly in tournaments s and their limited toolset is still very effective again a lot of popular builds.
The most popular caster right now is axis, who’s most powerful tools are his incredibly effective tempo feat Amd his countercharge field marshal. the key piece for convergence is their battle engine, which, in addition to looking awesome, is one of the most effective anti infantry pieces in the game. Other than that, axis runs a melee focused battle group of inverters Amd conservators, Amd it’s rounded out with a bunch of drones. You can run an axis list with Lucant without changing it much Amd it’s still really good. When Locke is released she will probably replace axis in a list pair, though she’s more likely to run a colossal than he is. Axis or Lucant and his melee list is usually paired with either Orion or iron mother, who run a more combined arms battgroup of assimilators, usually with at least one TEP thrown in. An alternative is to run them with the prime conflux Amd 3-5 modulators, because my they are very cost effective models. Most of the time both lists are run in the destruction initiative theme. All lists also need a corollary for focus support.
Syntherion, aurora, ciphers, monitors, Amd the clockwork legion theme force are still played, sometimes competitively, but the consensus is they are the less competitive than the stuff I already mentioned. Adding to the problem is the clockwork legion theme is a lot more expensive to buy into than destruction initiative.
|
|
|
|
Post by gobber on May 29, 2018 9:27:49 GMT
However I did want to get some new jacks for mercs too, so I’ve been toying with the idea to go crucible guard when it’s released... then I remembered that Locke is also going to be COC and through her I could use the few Merc jacks I wanna get from CG while still getting use out of them a bit in COC. If I remember correctly in wk4 of CID they removed the ability to run vanguards and toros in convergence. |
|
crow
Junior Strategist
Posts: 310
|
Post by crow on May 29, 2018 10:53:54 GMT
If I remember correctly in wk4 of CID they removed the ability to run vanguards and toros in convergence. So I checked my week 6 crucible guard CID download that I still have and the rule during week 6 was; "Maker’s Mark [Crucible Guard] - This warjack can be included in a battlegroup controlled by a Crucible Guard model. If it is, this warjack is a Crucible Guard model instead of a Mercenary model. If this warjack begins the game as part of a battlegroup controlled by a Crucible Guard model, it can be included in an army made using a theme force whether or not it can normally be included in armies made using the theme force." Now that still seems to me like they could be taken with Locke... was it a ruling that came from the discussion boards or something? If so... boo... still not a deal breaker... but defs boo. |
|
|
|
Post by Korianneder on May 29, 2018 12:10:53 GMT
If I remember correctly in wk4 of CID they removed the ability to run vanguards and toros in convergence. So I checked my week 6 crucible guard CID download that I still have and the rule during week 6 was; "Maker’s Mark [Crucible Guard] - This warjack can be included in a battlegroup controlled by a Crucible Guard model. If it is, this warjack is a Crucible Guard model instead of a Mercenary model. If this warjack begins the game as part of a battlegroup controlled by a Crucible Guard model, it can be included in an army made using a theme force whether or not it can normally be included in armies made using the theme force." Now that still seems to me like they could be taken with Locke... was it a ruling that came from the discussion boards or something? If so... boo... still not a deal breaker... but defs boo. Locke has a rule on her latest edition that says shes only a crucible guard model while in a crucible guard army. It's called split loyalties. |
|
crow
Junior Strategist
Posts: 310
|
Post by crow on May 29, 2018 15:46:09 GMT
So I checked my week 6 crucible guard CID download that I still have and the rule during week 6 was; "Maker’s Mark [Crucible Guard] - This warjack can be included in a battlegroup controlled by a Crucible Guard model. If it is, this warjack is a Crucible Guard model instead of a Mercenary model. If this warjack begins the game as part of a battlegroup controlled by a Crucible Guard model, it can be included in an army made using a theme force whether or not it can normally be included in armies made using the theme force." Now that still seems to me like they could be taken with Locke... was it a ruling that came from the discussion boards or something? If so... boo... still not a deal breaker... but defs boo. Locke has a rule on her latest edition that says shes only a crucible guard model while in a crucible guard army. It's called split loyalties. Lol must have missed that rule too stoked about vanguards I guess  |
|
